Shantideva, 9th chapter, refers to illusion-like things. He differentiates them from actual illusions on the basis of mind: the example is an illusion of a person, which has no mind. It is contrasted to an illusion-like person who has a mind.

Now, Shantideva refers to the mind as an illusion-like thing. Suddenly I am confronted with infinite regression, or progression. An illusion-like thing has a mind, so a mind has a mind which has a mind which has a mind....

This little reductio leads me to think that the possession of a mind cannot be the sole criterion differentiating between an illusion and an illusion-like object. But what the other criteria might be stumps me. Maybe possession of mass, occupation of space... but these don't seem to apply to mind.

As it very lucidly explains the recursion of nature, and how this is so evident and indeed relevant when reading and trying to understand the Suttas. I have found the language a little difficult in areas, but working through it has been well worth my while.

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Thanks. The more I probe around in this logical morass the more I think mind and consciousness are fundamentally different things. Mind is starting to look like the aggregate of sense perceptions and thought perceptions, while consciousness remains a mysterious semi-existent entity, neither observer nor nothing, neither eternal nor impermanent. Well that's how it appears to me at the moment, it's a work in progress.

BTW maybe you can tell me if I have inadvertently fallen into one of those questions Buddha warned us about? You know, the ones that just make you crazy?

Catmoon wrote:BTW maybe you can tell me if I have inadvertently fallen into one of those questions Buddha warned us about? You know, the ones that just make you crazy?

Here's the ten inponderables:

1. The world is eternal.2. The world is not eternal.3. The world is (spatially) infinite.4. The world is not (spatially) infinite.5. The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.6. The soul is not identical with the body.7. The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.8. The Tathagata does not exist after death.9. The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.10. The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

53. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands mentality-materiality, the origin of mentality-materiality, the cessation of mentality-materiality, and the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

But in this instance, asking me for advice is like one blind man asking another what an elephant looks like. This is where an experienced teacher is handy, that's the very reason I'm leaving for Sri Lanka next year. The Dhamma is like a jungle path that is not clearly defined, if one does not have an experienced guide to help, it's easy to get side tracked, lost and waste a lot of time being led down the garden path.

mettaJack

Last edited by BlackBird on Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Santideva is late Madhyamaka Mahayana, and his writings are sastra / parikatha style. Using a Theravadin approach to sutta may not necessarily be what you are looking for here.

Last edited by Paññāsikhara on Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

Well that was useful. At least now I know I'm somewhere near the path, if not directly on it. I guess sometimes it looks like I can crack this nut overnight. This has led me to spend a great deal of time on it lately. Feels like I'm re-inventing the wheel, but what else do you do when the wheelwrights are nowhere to be found?

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill